Telangana High Court
Munigala Jalapathi vs M/S Kapil Chit Fund P Limited on 27 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1622 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are not necessary parties.
3. Respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, filed a suit in O.S.No.167 and 2011, against petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 12 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,44,980/- along with interest @12% per annum. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013, the said suit was decreed ex parte. On the strength of the said decree, respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, has filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.6 of 2019, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who in turn, passed the undated order closing the said E.P. Challenging the same, petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
2 KL, J C.R.P.No.1622 of 2025
4. Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act, 1982'), came into force on 15.09.2008 itself. Therefore, after 15.09.2008, respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, cannot file a suit before the civil Court and it has to file an application before the Registrar, in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 1982. Instead, respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, filed O.S.No.167 of 2011 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on 30.06.2011. Therefore, the said suit, O.S.No.167 of 2011 is not maintainable. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court decreed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013.
5. He would further contend that even an ex parte order should be passed on merits and the learned trial Court decreed the said suit stating that the suit claim is proved and the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for charging interest @12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till its realization. It is not a reasoned order. Respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, represented by its Recovery Officer, 3 KL, J C.R.P.No.1622 of 2025 Sri N. Shiva Krishna, filed the aforesaid suit without any authorization from respondent No.1. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court decreed the said suit.
6. He would further contend that as per the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, there is no need of furnishing 12 sureties. The entire amount was credited to the account of M/s. Kapil Chit Funds (Kakatiya) Private Limited, whereas, the decree holder is M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited, Karimnagar Branch. On the said grounds, he sought to set aside the undated order under revision passed by the learned trial Court in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2011.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, would contend that there is no error in the undated order under revision.
8. As discussed supra, petitioner being Judgment Debtor No.3 can resist the Execution Petition raising all the grounds and contentions which he has raised in the present Civil Revision Petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel 4 KL, J C.R.P.No.1622 of 2025 for the petitioner, even an ex parte judgment should be on merits. Perusal of judgment dated 30.10.2013 in O.S.No.167 of 2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, would reveal that the learned trial Court decreed the said suit stating that the suit claim is proved, the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for, with interest @12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till its realization. However, the learned trial Court did not assign any reason. There is no consideration of Exs.A.1 to A.18. But, there is challenge to the said ex parte judgment and decree. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Act, 1982, came into force with effect from 15.09.2008. Admittedly, the present suit was filed by respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, on 30.06.2011. In fact, respondent No.1 has to file an application in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 1982, before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits. Instead of doing so, petitioner filed the aforesaid suit before the civil Court.
9. In the order under revision, there is no date and the Executing Court passed the order under revision closing the 5 KL, J C.R.P.No.1622 of 2025 said E.P. Therefore, it is not a reasoned order. However, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to raise all the contentions before the learned Executing Court. He has not even entered appearance in E.P. Therefore, petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to enter appearance in E.P.No.6 of 2019 and raise all the grounds and contentions, which he has raised in the present Civil Revision Petition, before the learned Executing Court and it is for the Executing Court to consider the same.
10. In the light of the above, the undated order under revision passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court with a direction to decide E.P.No.6 of 2019 afresh. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take all the aforesaid contentions before the learned Executing Court in the said E.P. by filing counter. Thereafter, it is for the trial Court to consider and decide the same.
6 KL, J C.R.P.No.1622 of 2025
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th JUNE, 2025.
Note: issue c.c. by 01.07.2025.
kvni